User talk:Kloudzero
Welcome! - -- YuriKaslov (Talk) 18:12, April 24, 2012 Source Please tell me where you got your info on those pages you created and provide a link. If not they will be deleted as whos to say they are real or not plus pretty sure that we may already have articles on the pages you created but with different names. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 19:54, September 2, 2013 (UTC) http://forum.symthic.com/battlefield-4/5246-vehicle-spec-descriptions-gamescon-2013-info/ Kloudzero (talk) 20:20, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Thanks for source but please stop making pages. We already have those created. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 20:26, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Can you show me the duplicates? I see none currently. They all do not have the exact same names but they are there. For example. Smoke screen is IR Smoke. Also, i should not that you should sign your edits when on talk pages. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 20:30, September 2, 2013 (UTC) You are incorrect. http://imgur.com/a/p44bd You have threatenend to delete pages and have proven you don't know what you are talking about. One more beligerent action from you and you will be reported. Kloudzero (talk) 20:33, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Funny how DICE/EA never announced these and if these pages you created turn out to be from the Alpha Files Leak then they will be deleted. We dont allow leaked content on the Wiki as its considered illegal. Am i wrong? -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 21:02, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Illegal? Please cite the law and jurisdiction stating as much. The info is not "leaked." It is from Symthic and we have an open dialogue with the developers. If the info is considered "leaked" then you'd better remove the gun charts we provided you with since none of that has been "officially" confirmed either. We've received precisely zero requests to remove the info you see on our site. I warned you to temper yourself and instead you've continued your belligerence. As promised, I have reported you. Kloudzero (talk) 21:16, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Dude, i was referring to the Alpha file leak from a few months back and if the content was from that. Posting info from leaks breaks copy right and is therefore illegal. If what you say is true then no harm done. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 21:25, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Anything coming directly from an alpha with no official release/statement/acknowledgement by EA is likely a leak coming from a person who had signed an NDA (non-disclosure agreement), which is a legally binding contract, and hence it is well within EA's rights and power to demand that Wikia remove such content. I come from a wiki which was specifically targeted by one of these major companies for posting content which was illegally leaked, so yes, it happens. Cease posting until you provide some confirmation that EA made an exception for those providing the information. If you don't, you are going to be blocked for breaking our policy. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:22, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Regrettably you have chosen to adopt a hostile tone with me as well. Despite providing links and proof nearly every communique from both your staff and users has involved some form of threatening to ban. This is a sad performance by purported curators of a wiki. The information I have provided in the updates and additions that I have made are sourced through a combination of videos recorded by attendees of Gamescon, our staff's private game testing and access and testing conducted by me personally. A significant portion of what has been provided has been gleemed from this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLxV3ZW-I40 which is publically available. Most of the rest of our info comes from our arrangement with the developers. Proof of which can be seen here: https://twitter.com/Demize99/status/371372830635876352 Obviously, we cannot dislouse the full details and all of the correspondence we have. However, the information we have posted has been front and center on our site for months now and the developers are frequent guests of ours. As further evidence, all of the specific gun info you have on your site (ROF, damage etc) was all provided through similar methods and arrangements, yet I notice you seem to have no issues with displaying them. I have devoted far too much of my time today in trying to better this site. In return I have been greeted with an open form of hostility. Typical syntax dictates that people enter into a productive dialogue, but that seems not to be the case for the ban happy administrators here. Despite my better judgement I will allow you a chance to make ammends and return this conversation to a more equitable bearing. However, should anymore of this banning and removal of posts talk occur without proper civility then it will be my suggestion to Sym to remove all of his assocaited work from your site and cease any further cooperation. Kloudzero (talk) 23:08, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :Kloud, we here at the BF Wiki are not being hostile. We are just letting you know what you can and cant do and what could happen if you dont follow these. Also, just because you have info from developers doesnt make it official. Again no hard feelings. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 23:23, September 2, 2013 (UTC) :Now if you added a link to any video on the pages you created as references then that is allowed as you definitely have concrete evidence. -- '' awyman13'' Talk' ' 23:33, September 2, 2013 (UTC) If whatever information was actually from/showcased at gamescon, then yes, that would work. We have a policy of keeping identical items and variants of items (even if they have different names) on the same page. I honestly have no fucking clue what's been going on in that regard, I haven't been here for like a week and this was just brought to my attention. I also don't know where you got the idea that there was a "relationship" between our sites in the first place. I've never used symthic and whatever info that was added from there was completely outside my range of awareness. We had very loose contact with DenKirson in BC2 days and afaik that was it. Everything I, personally, have added comes from my own personal experimentation and research. I'm the one who provided most of the hard facts on the Refractor engine, for instance. There's never been any dialogue between the sites, to my knowledge. And just for the record, every contribution here that isn't previously acknowledged/attributed as being under another license is automatically classed under CC-BY-SA. Therefore, the only times where removal of info can occur (under threat of legal action) is where their addition was illegal to start with (Activision threatened Wikia some years ago when users on the CoD wiki posted illegally leaked information from MW2, for instance) and images, mostly. So if you want to be able to remove that sort of content from here, you'll have to keep it limited to images where the license-holder is you or your affiliates. Fair warning. Once you post it here it's out of your control. I'm not so much of a dick that I won't respect the original creator's request, but it's a fallacy to assume you retain control over info posted here. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:11, September 3, 2013 (UTC) I understand that you are returning from some time away and that you've not fully had a chance to digest all of the information. From my point of view the following occured: I made submissions to the site which were dismissed by another member out of hand. The member immediately adopted a hostile stance towards me. This only increased when he was proven wrong twice consecutively. This user, I gather, has a history of reliably reporting other members and so his report was assumed true and I was presumed guilty. Had his tone been in keeping with what is typically considered civil we likely could have resolved this without ever having troubled you. I alluded to our relationship. While not a personal one we very much have a conduit of info that is passed onto this site via our members. In addition, information like this:http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Weapon_Damage_Chart is pulled directly from us. We'd very much like to keep this conduit flowing as it benefits both of our communities. Your time is valuable as is mine. Let's not waste anymore of either of ours. By now I hope that you have had a chance to look at some of the contributions I have made today. I think you'll agree that this is all extremely innocuous information that would not elicit so much as an eyebrow raise from any legal department. Allow me to rephrase the wording on the submissions that contain any reference to the Alpha. With regards to the naming of similar variants, this is a minor issue and pertains to only one of my submissions: Laser Guided Missile. I suggest that it (The guided missiles article) be changed to that name since there are several new missiles coming to BF4, all of which are guided and this will alleviate much potential confusion. Would this arrangement be acceptable to you? If so I will set about making the changes and have them done within the day. Kloudzero (talk) 01:01, September 3, 2013 (UTC) : I'm just skimming through some of this, but my first suggestion is to just calm down. Throwing words like "belligerent" and "hostile" around is not going to make your argument any better (right Yuri? :p ). Maintaining the integrity of the wiki is more important than jumping on every possible detail that might relate to BF4, and there are plenty of people who are willing to help without resorting to threats. It is probably best to avoid "leaked" information regardless of its source, and stick with information that has been provided directly by DICE/EA, such as the Gamescom livestream; or to sources that refer to it like some of the BF3 commentators on YouTube. I did notice that Awyman thought that Smoke Screen was just IR Smoke, which we now know to not be the case. A link to the video you took screenshots from might have been more convincing. (You could also use the video as a reference in the Smoke Screen page.) Personally, I wonder why we have a page devoted to information pulled straight from Symthic where a link would suffice. It's like Time Magazine ripping a story out of the New York Times, and I think it's plagiarism. Symthic is an excellent resource, but our page makes it seem as if we were the ones who did the hard work of building the images. It would be much more appropriate to refer to these charts in the weapon infoboxes, and frame the information in the context of the articles. Nayhem (talk) 05:52, September 4, 2013 (UTC) I don' t have an "argument." The user in question immediately adopted an aggressive stance and in the face of facts decided to double down on his ignorance and proceeded to act in the most cravenly manner as he continued his veiled threats and proceeded to file a report instead of responding to mine. There was nothing to "calm" either. If you could have troubled yourself to do more than "skimming" you would have seen that my responses were very clear and without any tone disrespect despite the very first utterance out of this indivdual being in the form of a threat. To be clear, when someone states "If not they will be deleted as whos to say they are real or not..." that is not simply "stating policy." A clerk asking you for your receipt does not state "Or else who is to say whether you bought this or not and I will call the police." A police office asking you for you license and registration does not say "Or else I will assume this car is stolen and file charges against you." A very simple "Could you provide sources for the material recently submitted?" would have sufficed. If at that point I haven't responded in the affirmative then by all means please do state the policy. Then after being proven wrong again you go and start you sentence with "Funny" then yes, despite what you and some of your colleagues may think, the rest if the civilized world would interpret that as being belligerent. When someone obstructs the flow of good information and, worse, provides misinformation instead, that should be a big deal. Here, that doesn't seem the case. My fault for presuming we added a similar value system. I'm happy that the admistrators were kind enough to come to an agreement with the postings made but I've decided that the individuals who frequent this page pose an annoyance to such a degree that I feel it's not a worthy expenditure of my time to contribute. My goal was not to hoard information but to help disseminate it among a larger audience. It's regrettable that it has come to this but if I have to resort to swatting away some yapping pooch every time I venture out to post then so be it. Both communities will survive but the end user will be worse off. Kloudzero (talk) 06:45, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Actaully I see now that you're removing most of the contributions made, incorrectly I might add, attributing them to the Alpha files when in fact they were from Gamescon. As a further sign of disrespect, the administators failed to show basic courtesy and respond to my last message made in good faith before doing so. It seems that all efforts have been put forth to display a unified front of stupidity and ignorance. From doing everything from threatening banning upon first contact to failing to identify yourself the administartors have done simply outstanding work in proving what an outdated and backwards operation you have here. Please pardon me from disturbing the ignorance you're basking in. Good riddance.